Jump to content

Talk:Jodie Foster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Midnightguinea (talk | contribs) at 19:22, 12 April 2007 (→‎Jodie Foster is a lesbian?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography: Actors and Filmmakers B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as High-importance).

Minor formatting question

Hey, new to this so didn't want to change anything, but is there a reason why in the awards section the whole of 1991 has the table cells merged, yet 1988 has them separated? Seems inconsistent to me, which is the correct layout? Thanks. TheMania 10:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan assassination

"Some view Foster is partially to blame for snubbing the disturbed Hinckley yet she has never apologized for her involvment in the shooting which left James Brady paralyzed." It's pretty ridiculous to say that she owes anybody an apology; she's not responsible for Hinckley's actions. Besides, it's stupid to say that all celebrities should respond to the advances of crazy fans, and it's unfair to say Jodie Foster should have done it when she had no idea what was going to happen. I don't want to delete this until there's been a little bit of discussion, but this section is pretty biased against her. --PatadyBag 01:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


something on this should be mentioned

Too much censorship

Wiki is supposed to be unbiased not a fawning hagiography of this women. Critics fawn over her but some see her as the hypocritical twit she is. She hides in the closet and makes commercials in Japan as to not damage her golden image. Template:Unsiged

Even if (for instance) she has made commercials in Japan, a) tons of American celebrities make commercials that never air in the United States (for instance, Jennifer Aniston in a Heiniken commercial that aired in Germany), so the fact that she's made commercials abroad doesn't merit mention in the article, and b) the dig about it being not to tarnish her image makes the article NPOV and hence it has no place in Wikipedia. --PatadyBag 02:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this Censorship? The fact that she did make commercials in Japan (at least 1) is relevant to her career. This is not an Aniston art. It is also reasonable to assume Foster is worried about her image since she is a Hollywood actress and has stayed in the closet for so long.

Patybag and Sciro you need to allow factual relevant info about Foster to be allowed. Will the RC patrol or someone look into this?? This is supposed to be unbiased and INFORMATIVE about the real J. Foster. Please re-insert J. commercial info.

Jodie Foster is not God, she is what she is even if she won't admit it, part of the Hollywood PR machine that turns out crap. Foster is considered by some to be a phony who hides her girlfriend and the father of her children.

Foster carefully cultivates an wholesome all american image while she hides in her closet as millions die of AIDS when her prominence could bring greater awareness. She is a public figure who rakes in millions making violent Hollywood movies such as Silence of the Lambs.

Shame on Foster and those in Hollywood who aid in her propaganda! Activists say stop watching Foster movies. Flightplan is a rip-off of Red Eye anyways.

Dude, you read like a bad tabloid. I don't know what your beef with Foster (and looking at what your "contributions" are, with Meryl Streep as well), but your information has no business being in an encyclopedic article. So she's done commercials overseas- so have tons of celebrities. Not even close to worthy of mention in the article. As for your speculation as to her reasons not for doing American ads, it's pure speculation that is propaganda at best. If you want to vilify the woman, then do it here on the talk page- not on the main article. --PatadyBag 04:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's your deal dude? I mean, all that crap isn't called for. She's a great actress, and personally my favorite. I agree with PatadyBag. You do read like a bad tabloid. Yes, she's done commercials overseas, who cares? She's had a tought life. Think about it. She never had a father, all the Hinckley crap, her own brother writing a tell-all book, and people calling her a lesbian. Dude, this is not cool. No she is not a God, nor does she think he is. She is a human being. PATADYBAG IS RIGHT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychiatrist 101 (talkcontribs) 10:26, July 15, 2006 (UTC)

Facts are Relevant- Censorship is not

Facts are facts. This should be mediated by and Admin or someone. By deleting relevant biographical facts about Foster that is totally POV censorship. I challenge anyone to disprove that J. Foster has acted in Japanese commercials for large amounts of money. If a fact is true about a public figure and it is about her career how is it biased. It is biased to delete/censor this info. If you want to include this info for other relevant celebs be my guest. Foster's article should be informative and comprehensive not a hagiography that is a total biased POV. NPOV does not mean omitting facts that can be construed as negative (there's nothing wrong with being in a commercial). People on Wiki can decide for themselves how they feel about Foster not have the FACT that she was in J. commercials be censored. This is a well documented fact as is the FACT that she has not done US commercials in decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.121.110 (talkcontribs) 23:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to include "Some critics believe this is due to her desire to maintain a certain image in the American public" in the article, you'll have to let us know WHICH critics, if they're notable, where they have made these comments, and sources to document these claims. Zoe 06:42, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanx for the tip

However the info/fact that she has done more than one Japanese commercial while she has not done any US commercials in decades is an undisputed relevant fact about her career and NEEDS to be allowed into her bio b/c it is biographical info. There's no need to censor truthful info about Foster's career or life. It's like omitting Clinton's scandal with Lewinsky b/c some people like Clinton. Readers can decide for themselves about a person based on the facts. Wiki should be about relevant facts not omission of the relevant facts about her career. If it's relevant that she has worked in movies than it's relevant she has done (worked) in Japanese Honda commercials. Let the people decide how they feel about this FACT don't censor it. Let the 1st Amd principles and NPOV be your guide not suppression of facts. 66.248.122.177 20:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, don't put in the editorial comment. Just say that she's made commercials overseas, and let the readers make up their own minds. Zoe 07:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Ms. Foster to help future edits

Let me start by saying I have nothing against Jodie Foster. She is obviously intelligent, but that is not the issue. She probably doesn/t know me personally even though I have worked in the movie industry (briefly). I appreciate the suggestions of the adm (Zoe and others) I just find it disturbing that certain relevant facts about J. Foster are suppressed such as her starring in Japanese commercials and that she is not open about her sexuality. Perhaps that is her right but she is a public person who could save lives if she "came out of the closet" so to speak. What bothers me about Foster is her apparent hypocrisy, shilling for the Japanese yet American commercials are not good enough for her. Its reasonable to infer that there is some PR ideas here. Once she apparently signed an autograph picture and took the fan's picture with her by giving it to her bodyguard (Celebrity Uncensored). If Ms. Foster is a mult-millionaire actress why does she have to "take" a poor fan's picture of her. Again it would be possible to infer some PR consideration on her part.

It's disappointing that someone who has benefited so much from America, has not done more for it. Does she contribute to charity? Probably a few but I haven't heard of any. One thing for sure she is no Cindy Sheehan. Ms. Foster stays apolitical as she rakes in the money from her Hollywood films. Maybe that's smart for her and too smart for us. Isn't FlightPlan very similar to a Twilight Zone plot about returning astronauts. I just urge people to think about who they want to have as their Movie Stars and their character should count too. 66.248.122.177 20:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert anymore since it only ends up as a pointless edit war, but I remain firm in my assertion that mention of Foster's commercial work shouldn't be included in the article. Endorsement is a typical part of being a celebrity- if mention of foreign commercials merits attention here, then by extrapolation all celebrity endorsements worldwide should be mentioned in their respective articles. It seems the only reason you are so intent on including this virtually pointless information is because you've got something against Foster. As such, keep your opinions on the talk page instead of in the article itself. --PatadyBag 19:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Picture

Why does exist an article about Jodie Foster in Wikipedia? Is it beacause she speaks French, or because she made Japanese commercials or beacause she is intelligent or because she's an alleged lesbian? No! None of the above. Jodie Foster has an article in Wikipedia because she is a professional actress who has won many awards (including 2 Oscars) and because many of her films are well received both by public and by critics. The rest is non-relevant material for an encyclopedia. The main focus should be on her professional carrer. What car she drives, who is she sleeping with, and what she's advertising for are a small matter, suitable for magazines and tabloids. The goal of Wikipedia is to reach a very high standard. In order to achieve this take a look at the Jodie Foster article in Encyclopedia Britannica. There is nothing there even remotely close to the things that have been wrote recently here by an anonymous person who is not a user. Mr. or Mrs. 66.248.122... please take your beef with J. Foster elsewhere. Although I don't think you can, try to see the big picture. Tavilis 20:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Really Have to Strongly Disagree Here

First I admit I am still learning all the nuances of Wiki-editing (what to put in a talk page). Also maybe some of my previous opinion have been colorful yet honest. I have tried to be civil and everyone has been fairly civil but it is unfair to just delete relevant info about Ms. Foster's career just b/c you don't like it. I have never made any statements on Wiki about what language she speaks or what car she drives. I did not write about her brother's bio or the initial allegation of her lesbianism. Second it is really unfair to delete an important section about her career (work) in Japan. I spent hours locating the relevant and editing the page to add some fairly innocous but relevant info about here ad work in Japan. People should have all the facts about her career and draw their own conclusion not have it suppressed. Her ad work in Japan rather than the US is relevant career info. I urge users and admin to look at the page before Mr. Tavilis deleted it. Admin Zoe has said facts about her work in Japan is acceptable. Readers get the "big picture" with more relevant info about a performer's career not less. Whatever my opinion of Ms. Foster may be I have not let it colored my most recent editing. Please revert to NPOV including Advertising Work section. I don't want to but perhap we need some objective mediation on this editing issue. 66.248.123.149

Although I appreciate your taking the more editorial aspects of your additions to the article out of your revisions, and although I accept that she has done commercial work in Japan, it simply isn't important enough relative to her entire career to be included in an article about her (much less to have its own section). The only commercial that should be included in the article is her Coppertone commercial from when she was young because it is a culturally significant and iconic commercial. (P.S.- Even when you sign now, it only shows up as your IP address- I suggest you register for an account so discussion can take place on your talk page). --PatadyBag 21:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've said that her commercials in Japan are a part of her career. It is true because she was promoting her image in Japan where she became very popular. More Japanese came to cinemas to see her movies and consequently more money went to America. So she did something good for US. And in the process she made some bucks for herself. Good for her! She didn't do any commercials in her adult life in US because she didn't have to. She's rich enough and she didn't have to promote her image there - she's already famous. But there are other things which are part of her career. For examples she enjoys kickboxing, yoga, karate, aerobics, and weightlifting and one might say these are very important for her career because so she stays in good shape. She also recorded some songs for the movie "Moi, fleur bleu" which was another important issue in her career. There are many facts that we could say are or were important for her career. All these are interesting trivia stuff but perhaps they better stay out of an encyclopaedic article. We better focus on her career itself than on the facts affecting her career. Again please refer to the Jodie Foster article in Encyclopaedia Britannica for a glimpse of professionalism. Tavilis 22:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable Compromise Solution

First I'd like to thank Mr. Tavisil for responding. However I do not think his comparison to her kickboxing, weightlifting hobbies is apt because these are not professional activities of her. (She is not being paid for it) I personally wouldn't mind succint bio. info. like that on the page if someone cares to insert it. What I have done is re-insert a very small paragraph on her relevant work in Japan at the very end. Factual, NPOV and some people will certainly find it interesting/relevant b/c it is part of her professional body of work. I hope this will bring consensus and we can move on. Also I will remove some of the earlier comments on this page which seem to offend people. This isn't about my opinion of her but providing relevant biographical facts of interest to the reader. Thanks for all your input. 66.248.123.149 22:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go- I edited the page a little bit to what I view as an acceptable compromise. It retains mention of her commercial work, but doesn't mention that she hasn't been in commercials in the U.S. since childhood (since a) there's no way to be entirely certain of that, and b) it's a little redundant, seeing as Japan is specifically mentioned to the exclusion of the States). I also got rid of the mention of it being a lucrative deal, since that's why celebrities generally do commercials in the first place (thus, it sort of goes without saying). Hopefully this compromise works for you? --PatadyBag 23:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just move on with consensus/comprom. and help Wiki be great

I am only trying to do my small part to put some relevant info and help Wiki grow as a great Internet reference resource I really feel we have spent enough time on this issue and can move on if everyone is reasonable. I'm not trying to upset any users/fans here. I'm just trying to add some relevant info about J. Foster. Quite frankly I found the last edit a little petty and unnecessary. To address some of Mr. PatadyBag's points: first you wrote that you "I'm not going to revert anymore since it only ends up as a pointless edit war" yet you delete some links and headings (a defacto revert). Second I'm happy to change the sentence to "any US television commercials since childhood" if that helps. There is no evidence I know of of Foster being in a consumer product TV commercial since the Coppertone. If anyone has other info, please present it. Also not all ad contracts are lucrative, some local ads may only pay a few hundred $ (scale) for local models/actors. Plus oversea ads are very lucrative that's why US celebs do them for overseas and not here (ie Dicaprio apparently got $2million for one Jp commercial). Therefore it is relevant to note that her Jp deals likely was lucrative and more importantly they have clauses which prevent them from being shown in the US. That's why Americans never see them. This applies (as PR) not only to Foster but to other celebs who do ads for Jp companies. All of this is relevant information b/c it pertains to her professional work.

Whatever honest mistakes I have made I have not delete any real info from this article. I've only tried add a little on her professional work. Why should anyone be afraid of this information about Foster's work? The heading and link citation is only to accord with Wiki style guidelines and make it easier for readers to follow. Let's remember these entries (biographical) are not just for fans of the subject but for people who might want to learn more about the topic. We shouldn't delete any relevant info on the subject unless absolutely necessary. Also these are just facts about Foster that some might find "trivial" but others might find useful and informative (or even entertaining). I might find the fact she starred in "Napoleon & Samantha" or she went to a French school trivial but I'm not certainly going to delete it. It's up to the readers to decide what facts are trivial and what facts are useful for them. If editors delete everything THEY find trivial Wiki has less info for its readers and everyone in Wiki loses!

Also NPOV doesn't mean no point of view it means multiple points of views for balance (Wiki Help) as long as its truthful, relevant and presented clearly for the encyclopedia. Don't let any comments made on the Talk page color your editing decision on the article's main page. I've already remove some of the more colorful comments on this page. There should be a presumption of inclusion for all facts pertaining to Foster's life and work. Let's all work to help add to Wiki and make it better. Thanks for listening.66.248.120.96 02:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A hearty amen to the quest of making the Wiki better- and that's what argument like this ultimately does (once a solution is reached, anyways). Here's why I made the edits I did- I took out the header for advertising work because advertising is not a significant part of her career- she is known most for making movies, and that is what the primary focus of the article should be. I'm not averse to leaving in mention of the Japanese commercials, but at the moment the amount of space dedicated to this work is a bit disproportionate to the rest of her career. Second- I got rid of the setence regarding how lucrative the deals are because it's obvious without being stated that celebrities do commercials to make money; although I concede you point that not all people in commercials make a lot of money, Jodie Foster is an international celebrity, and hence any commercial she would be in is bound to be lucrative. Third, I got rid of the mention of clauses preventing airing in the U.S. because it really isn't important to the gist of the article and is at best fluff. Finally, I got rid of the mention of not having done U.S. commercials since childhood because you don't provide any proof for it. If you can find credible documentation that she's limited her commercial work to overseas, I'd be more than happy to include it. --PatadyBag 04:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have to agree to disagree. I just feel you are being unfair with these edits/reverts. Facts about Ms. Foster's work are pertinent and can be helpful to learn more about Ms. Foster for readers. Encyclopedias should inform. You still did not explain why you erased the cite link. Also her Ad Work was under a small Subheading under Life and Career not a heading. It is interesting information at the very end of a fairly comprehensive article which readers can interpret as they wish. Also there is no evidence based on multiple media watchers that she has been in any US consumer TV commercial in years, based on this it's reasonable to assume that she has not done any US TV commercials since Coppertone. The burden of proof is on those who want to show she has done US TV commercials to provide the evidence. Absent that there is a reasonable presumption she has not since she is primarily a movie and not a commercial actress (except for overseas commercials as I've tried to note). I've asked for mediation help but I don't know how long it will take. Again this is not about my feelings about Ms. Foster or trying to anger anyone, only to include information that is useful for readers based on unbiased facts. 66.248.121.159 13:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Capitalisation for how capitalisation in section headers are done, so "Advertising work" not "Advertising Work"; not that I agree with adding this section header. Note also that the japander link is in the "References" section, as we prefer not to have external links above that and the "External link(s)" sections. As for the misspelling, don't worry — it's a tricky name :) — Jeandré, 2005-08-28t22:15z

FINAL VOTE- INCLUDE/DON'T INCLUDE ADVERTISING INFO

Obviously this isn't going to get anywhere- the edits I made reflect the absolute maximum about the advertising that deserves mention in the article (just for comparison, at the moment you have as much space dedicated to the ads as is already dedicated to her two Best Actress Oscar wins). I call for a final vote on whether this ought to be in the article.

Oppose inclusion in the article, for all the reasons I've listed above. --PatadyBag 18:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose including in the article the info regarding the Japan commercials beacuse of many reasons discussed above.Tavilis 18:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For inclusion as relevant info. and reasons listed above. However I take it this is a non-binding survey for info only per Wiki policy. Also this survey has not been listed in the appropriate dispute resolution page as far as I see. 66.248.121.66 18:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we should consider this binding- you've already listed this conflict on the dispute page (in a rather biased way against me, might I add), and nothing has happened, so it seems like the fastest and easiest way to resolve this once and for all is to do what the results of this survey say. --PatadyBag 20:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all votes. Zoe 20:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Ultimately, I'm not completely opposed to having the commercials mentioned briefly- but right now, there are 4 lines and a subsection dedicated to obscure commercials overseas and 2.5 lines dedicated to her two Oscar wins. It's extremely disproportionate, and should be left with only a brief mention of her ad work. --PatadyBag 22:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - rather pointless info, to put it mildly, and highly disproportional. -- AlexR 16:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - One liner about it in filmography maybe, otherwise nothing Mbisanz 00:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose While I am all for including as much information as possible on Wikipedia, advertising in Japan is pretty trivial compared to some other things which could be discussed in this article. For one, how about a source on her atheism (I have seen the quote, maybe I can find it). Unless we're really going all out with every bit of info possible, Japanese commericals are meaningless. Captain Jackson 05:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article still have the neutrality tag?

Yep, I have read right through this talk page, and have just finished reading the current version of the article. Seems to me to be just an ordinary run of the mill Wiki article about an interesting celeb. Seems to me to contain known information we would need to include to fully cover the subject. Doesn't seem to me to contain extreme POV. Remove the tag anyone? 23:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree and removed it when it was inserted recently. --PhilipO 23:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have taken it down again. --Spartaz 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutcases

This woman appears to be a magnet for nutcases. Captain Jackson 03:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Another Deluded Fan"

I don't know if the tale of another deluded fan was a joke or just far-fetched and unsubstantiated, but if whoever put it up can back it up... Johndodd 23:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award Dates

According to Academy Award for Best Actress, the Academy's practice is to list films by release year: for example, the Oscar for "Best Actress in 1999" was announced during the award ceremony held in 2000. I have changed the dates associated with "The Accused" and "Silence of the Lambs" accordingly. Do other dates need changing? (I don't have time to check them all now.) Perhaps there are similar inconsistencies on other actor pages as well. RayGates 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How good CONTACT was

And how Jodie absolutely carried the movie. She struck just the right balance between energy/argumentativeness and vulnerability.

I did not really enjoy the movie the first time, I think because the ending was kind of a let-down and kind of sad. The very last scene is Ellie sitting alone in the great outdoors and thinking. Well, this was a thoughtful movie. Her character Dr. Ellie Arroway almost had a need to spend a lot of time by herself thinking. And she did not connect with the Palmer Joss character (Matthew McConaughey) at the end. He was also a thoughtful character. But they just each thought in such different realms. They probably should not have slept together at the beginning, probably should have just had a make-out session and appreciated each other, appreciated another intense person who has a different world view. But that's life, too. Sometimes you go too quick with someone you have some things in common with, but not others. FriendlyRiverOtter 01:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Foster is a lesbian?

I believe that Jodie Foster is a lesbian. I think that she is married to a woman producer of some sort, but that she is quite about it.

Have removed unverifiable comments regarding Miss Foster's sexuality. The comments are based upon gossip and are in no way encyclopedic. Please see the following article regarding possibly libelous comments: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046726.html

I don't know if she's a lesbian and it wouldn't change my opinion of her, but while it would be wrong for us to include the unsupported claim, it would be just as wrong for us to fail to report the frequent allegation as an allegation, without endorsing it. It doesn't take more than 10 second of googling to find articles like this one, and I'm sure we could find a reliable source that confirms the status of the allegation. We could write something like "There is a persistent but unsupported rumor that she is in a long-term relationship with producer Cydney Bernard." Would this violation Wikipedia rules? 24.44.99.211 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Cydney Bernard is back in the article AGAIN. Does it remain unsourced? 68.239.20.77 04:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'd just like to ask why Jodie Foster is included in the list of LGBT actors. It seemes to me that despite the fact that she has often been alleged to be in a relationship with Cydney Bernard, she's never stated this to be the case. In my opinion her sexuality has not been sufficiently proven for to be in a list for "actors who are or are known to have been gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.if someone wanted to create a list of actors who have been alleged to have been any one of these things then I suppose i'd support putting her in that list (though I'd imagine such a list would be rather lengthy and lead to many arguements about the credibility of the allegations). But since the LGBT actors list is clearly for people who have been proven to belong to that category I disagree with her inclusion in it and thus I am removing it from this article. if you disagree with

me, please feel free to respond. thank you for your time. The elephant in the room 21:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's on the cover of OUT magazine, fyi. That's probably grounds to say there are rumours she is not straight.66.45.138.197 01:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its still speculation so it should stay out. --Spartaz Humbug! 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's speculation to say she's a lesbian, but it's not speculation to say there's speculation. Out Magazine is a legitimate source, so some reference should be made to it. —Chowbok 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that if we could find five reliable sources (IE: not "The National Enquirer") which have made allegations that Jodie Foster is a closeted lesbian, that would be sufficient cause to put, at the least, a blurb in the article stating that controversy around her sexual orientation has permeated her career. It is pretty much common knowledge, but common knowledge isn't enough to put it in the article. For reference, see Clay Aiken - there is an entire section discussing the unending allegations of his homosexuality, and it is referenced/sourced and very encyclopedic. Midnightguinea 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I don't know if anybody keeps an eye on this page, but the infobox that is being used for Ms. Foster is typically reserved for female porn stars. Just thought I'd let the editors know in case they wanted to revert it. I would myself, but this is my first time on this page and did not know if this was intentional or not.--NMajdantalk 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Cant Believe It!

What a goddamn sellout!! IMHO I can't believe she did Japanese commercials!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.172.69 (talkcontribs) .

Question about Chikopi in a Jodie movie

Anyone have any trivia insights into a Jodie F film that mentions "Chikopi?" What was the film? What was the context. Any pointers to scripts or video would be welcomed too. Rauterkus 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This was in the movie "Nell". Her character was raised in isolation and never developed the ability to enunciate clearly. "Chikopi" or "chikobee" was a phrase that she would repeat, it sounded like she was addressing someone or something dear, and it seemed to comfort her. To me it sounded like she was saying a version of "Chickadee", which would be a reference to the Carolina Chickadee which is a small, common, charismatic songbird common in the Appalachian forests in which the movie was set. Dgscofield 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I saw that movie. It seemed pretty clear that what was intended was that the old woman who was raising Foster's character Nell suffered a stroke and as Nell learned to talk, she acquired the speech defects of the old woman. I think "Chikopi" was a term of endearment; probably "chick pea". You also hear her say (phonetic approximation) "poaneil" which was probably "Poor Nell." The cool thing was that the more you heard Nell talk, the more you were able to "decipher" her "dialect." Just my opinion.

Ethnicity and Original Name

What's her maternal and paternal ancestry? Who knows?

According to "information" found during a Google search, her parents are Latvian. Also found online various places, and more notably in the "Absolutely Absorbing" 12th Uncle John's Bathroom Reader (page 122 footer factoid), her original name was "Ariane Munker".
I have been trying to track this through Google searches, but I can't find a reliable source. The closest I can find is a bunch of mentions of this in trivia books. At first, it sounds like trivia that has been copied time and again from unknown sources.
However, an Ariane Munker was the second actor to play Amanda Kirkland on soap opera Ryan's Hope. A Google Image search turned up a couple of pictures of the actress, and one looks suspiciously like her on this page. More recent pictures of Jodie Foster show a sharper nose and higher forehead, though, so I'd say it's not her.
Gotta love trivia book and game makers who copy other trivia books and games. --BlueNight 08:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Apparently the Ariane Munker in Ryan's Hope regularly acted in soap operas under the name "Ariana Chase". So much for oddball trivia. --BlueNight 09:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No, her father is Lucius Foster III (English descendant, * 16. April 1922) and her mother is Evelyn Schmidt (German, * 21. September 1928). This disposes definitely. 84.153.92.129 08:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get "Schmidt"? On the California Birth Records, Foster's mother's maiden name is listed as "Almond." It's the same for her siblings. Unless you have a source for Schmidt, it's time to let it go. Swango 06:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Flightplan was shot in Berlin, Foster herself claimed at last, that her mother is German (and her name was Schmidt) and in the German wikipedia-article it is also mentioned. 91.12.112.153 10:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at her official website. There is also declared, that her mother is German and her surname was Schmidt and even that her father was a son of German immigrants (not English). 91.12.112.153 11:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the German Wikipedia is a circular reference. Give us an outside link or verifiable reference -- like the California Birth Records. Swango 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken down the information again - this time there was a link to a freepages website that then linked to another site that had a membership log-in preventing access to the source. I'm sorry but we really need something much better then this as a source. Spartaz Humbug! 10:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Orientation

Have removed unverifiable comments regarding Miss Foster's sexuality AGAIN. The comments are based upon gossip and are in no way encyclopedic. Please see the following article regarding possibly libelous comments:

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046726.html

--Blumby 10:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that one website states she is an atheist (in addition to lesbian). I think they may just be assuming due to lack of released info, as we also know she doesn't like to release personal info, and she probably wouldn't release her religion. Remember, as stated from Silence of the Lambs: when you assume (a**|u|me), you make an a** out of u and me.71.243.165.144 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--I just reput the info on her with a source - IMDB, which names her same-sex partner. I'd never heard this before, but a friend told me earlier today, and since IMDB has the info, I figured it's worth sticking back in. But yeah, it was good to remove it pre-source. --texasmusician 18 November 2006

Sorry, we are particularly careful to only include well-sourced facts about living people - please see WP:BLP. Particularly when the facts are potentially controversial. Its Ms. Foster's perogative to keep this aspect of her life private if she wishes to, and Wikipedia is not the place to give currency to rumors. IMDB is not a reliable enough source. Sorry, Gwernol 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now she's been listed as one of "Out" magazine's 50 most powerful homosexuals in the US. (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/04/out_ranks_the_top_50_gays_ande.html). Don't know if that's a reliable source, but it might prompt a public reaction... ShaleZero 05:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that she's going to jeopardize her career by declaring herself a lesbian. The only reliable source about Jodie Foster's sexuality is Jodie Foster. Anyone or anything else's opinion is only speculation and heresay, and is therefore not a reliable source for Wikipedia. --Wasted Sapience 21:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that is worthy of mention, whether she's "out" or not, she's been ranked as powerful, and by a reputable source for that, regardless if she's in, out, or whatever. It does seem as though some people here are regarding homosexuality as a slur. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Concretecow (talkcontribs) 07:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Filmography and List of Awards

Why is the filmography in descending chronologicl order, while the list of awards is in ascending order? Is this a Wikipedia standard of which I am unaware? If so, please disregard the question.

Mensa membership

I couldn't find a single reliable source stating that she's a member of Mensa. Could you please specify "citation neeeded" or something?

How about http://scam.us.mensa.org/WhyBother.html? It's on the mensa website. Wikipedia brown 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion?

An anon editor put in a reference for the claim that she's an atheist - url=http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Jodie_Foster The link states: "She also described her beliefs as similar to those of her character in the movie and that she can certainly never have proof of god's existence or non-existence." Nowhere in the text does it say that she claimed to be an atheist. Never having proof (a belief) of existence or non-existence would lead me to think that she's either an agnostic or an atheist. It doesn't necessarily mean that she is absolutely one or the other. Dismas|(talk) 11:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she seems to be agnostic. Other online sources (which are all much more reliable than CelebAtheists, see my statement at Talk:Julianne Moore) quote her as professing agnostic beliefs yet loving religion anyway, stating that she loves to read religious texts. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The other image looked so much better. --Wasted Sapience 23:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

I just created that template, modeled after Template:Jim Carrey. I'll leave it up to someone else to decide what to do with it. Don't know why my text is appearing in the template itself in the 'show preview' mode. --Wasted Sapience 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. --Wasted Sapience 15:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]